Can GM Legally Ignore Others' Patents, Thanks To US Ownership?
from the that-might-make-for-a-fun-lawsuit... dept
Years ago, we wrote about how the US gov't used a "state secret" claim to simply ignore patents from a startup that may have been infringed by Lucent, so that it could use a startup's patented technology without getting a license (Updated to clarify that it wasn't Lucent's patents). Of course, there have been some other lawsuits on the subject and in the famous Zoltek case, it was ruled that the US gov't could effectively ignore patents of citizens. While some felt this probably wouldn't be that big of a deal (how often would it come up?), others are now pointing out that, thanks to the US gov't bailing out certain companies and taking equity stakes in the process, it could be argued that a US-owned GM is simply not subject to patent laws any more, and could, legally, get away with ignoring the restrictions on certain technologies covered by patents. Would GM actually do this? I doubt it, but it certainly could make for quite the legal fight if the company ever tried to use this as a defense in a patent lawsuit...Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: federal ownership, ownership, patents
Companies: gm, zoltek
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But but but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shhh! Do *NOT* give lawyers ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zoltek is now two cases; Zoltek v. US in the Court of Federal Claims and Zoltek v. Lockheed Martin in the Federal District Court located in Atlanta.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rule is that they dont. Ownership by the state does not make it part of the state. There are a whole list of criteria the entity must meet. The most relevant here would be whether or not the state controls the entity or not. If GM were state controlled, as opposed to state owned, then you could argue it should be included. However, if its simply ownership with an independent board (who are of course answerable to shareholders, but not controlled by them) then GM would fail the legal test here and not enjoy state immunity from patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While you are on the right track here, you are about a decade too late. We have left the 28th amendment behind a long time ago. There are laws that pertain to us that dont the them (*cough*HeathCare*cough*) so this is now a moot idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Interestingly, in cases involving patent (and copyright) infringement, the far more troubling issue is the sovereign immunity enjoyed by the states. For example, a state can receive a patent and sue a private third party. However, the converse is not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That could NEVER happen. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grandfather
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnik, WTF are you writing about ???
Huh ??????????????????????????
It wasn't Lucent patent, idiot
The patent belonged to small company - Crater Corporation and it was used by Lucent without license to make some money (actually a lot of money) on government contract without paying a dime to patent holder
Lucent was sued by Crater for willfull patent infringement but the case was killed when some of Lucent's friends in Wash DC invoked state secret clause to shield Lucent from any kind of court-ordered discovery
And this is called "journalism" nowadays !!!!!
I call it a pornography
Shame on you, Masnik !!!
Pull down your pants, Mikey, and take a punishment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnik, WTF are you writing about ???
So....Lucents patents were ignored under the "State secret" claim...Your round-about rant doesnt negate the point.
"And this is called "journalism" nowadays !!!!!"
No, its what is called a TECH BLOG. You know what blogs are, right? Then again, perhaps you dont, you're frothing so much I doubt much could get through that haze of hate.
"I call it a pornography"
This line makes no sense.
"Shame on you, Masnik !!!"
Why? He's not a journalist.
"Pull down your pants, Mikey, and take a punishment"
For what? Writing his OPINION about something? Ok then, YOU pull YOUR pants down, since your own opinion doesnt meet MY "journalistic standards" either. Time for a beating of a petulant whiner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Masnik, WTF are you writing about ???
I'm fairly certain that Angry Dude just wants to see Mike without his pants on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Masnik, WTF are you writing about ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnik, WTF are you writing about ???
The patent belonged to small company - Crater Corporation and it was used by Lucent without license to make some money (actually a lot of money) on government contract without paying a dime to patent holder
Actually, you're correct. I made a mistake and now I've fixed it.
Not sure why you need to go ballistic over it. We always are willing to correct mistakes in the post when clarified by commenters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnik, WTF are you writing about ???
Whoa ! .... you are one sick dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is GM above the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@12
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Support The Tea Party Now
Bush and the Republicans would never simply ignore important laws in this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]